D&D (2024) Take A Closer Look At The 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide

Wizards of the Coast has just shared a video delving into the upcoming One D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, due for release in 2024.

​

Scroll down to post #4, below, for a more detailed text summary!

• Chapter 1 -- basic concepts
• Chapter 2 -- Advice, common issues
• Chapter 3 -- Rules cyclopedia
• Chapter 4 -- Adventure building
• Chapter 5 -- Campaign building
• Chapter 6 -- Cosmology
• Chapter 7 -- Magic items
• Chapter 8 -- 'A surprise'
• Appendices -- maps, lore glossary

 

[mamba]

Lets just acknowledge that there's nothing you can do if the players don't care.

yes, and how does that change by the PHB talking about a session 0?

If the players don't care, then I stop DMing, not sure why I would continue. Either we find a different adventure where they do care, or we do something else entirely.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not following you here, I'm afraid. But I think you can see from a very many posts by posters other than just myself that they find your characterization of players to be a little... extreme.

No. You said "I think that you're finding pushback due to your repeated characterization of players that makes them sound like incredibly self-absorbed lunatics that can't possibly communicate and the utterly powerless DM." Give me some examples of text from my posts where you think I did that. Don't just throw out a fishing expedition

“The GM can talk to their players till the end of time but it doesn't matter if it's a conversation those players aren't ready & willing to engage in at an active or reasonable level.”

There are many other examples as well but this quote works.
From what you said the players refuse to communicate or engage with the DM and the DM is powerless. Which just makes no sense to me as I feel you can’t even play a game in that state.

Absolutely. I stand by what I said & will point to what Brennen Lee Mulligan was saying in the video I linked &quoted in post380 as a more verbose example of exactly that.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No. You said "I think that you're finding pushback due to your repeated characterization of players that makes them sound like incredibly self-absorbed lunatics that can't possibly communicate and the utterly powerless DM." Give me some examples of text from my posts where you think I did that. Don't just throw out a fishing expedition

No, I don't think that's necessary. I'm sure if you remember what you've written, or what anyone else has written, you can see where your words have been interpreted in that way. It doesn't require fishing, or quoting, or arguing about. It's also been discussed far more than it needs to have been at this point, I think.

I'm on your side that the Session Zero rules can be written better. They probably will be. The whole concept has come a long way since 2014.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If the players don't care about what you think they should when you are DMing then you have two reasonable choices:

1. Change what you are doing to focus on the things they do care about.
2. Accept that your DMing is not a good fit for the game those players in specific want to play.

There's a reason I'm running my 4e retroclone for one group and Apocalypse World for my other. Each group has a everyone loving the system and at least two players who'd hate the other one. And part of the point of session zero is to make sure you don't set off on the wrong foot.

And yes Session Zero guidance could be better written. So could just about everything else in the DMG.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Absolutely. I stand by what I said & will point to what Brennen Lee Mulligan was saying in the video I linked &quoted in post380 as a more verbose example of exactly that.

The reason we are disagreeing with you, is not because we are disagreeing with Mulligan here. The reason we are disagreeing is because we don’t think the players not caring is the default state of the game. But you seem to insist that players will be hostile and not care by default.

 

[tetrasodium]

The reason we are disagreeing with you, is not because we are disagreeing with Mulligan here. The reason we are disagreeing is because we don’t think the players not caring is the default state of the game. But you seem to insist that players will be hostile and not care by default.

No you are trashing players like bob....

• "Bob the player doesn't understand how to work with players on this because the text tells him to decide for himself & there are no longer any mechanical pressures that might push him towards very quickly absorbing the kinds of things he should have raised a few sessions back".. so there should be text aimed at helping bob instead of dumping it on the GM to fight the PHB.
• "There are lots of people like Bob the player & the player facing text does a god awful job of assisting them without needlessly dumping it on the GM".. so there should be text aimed at helping bob instead of dumping it on the GM to fight the PHB.
• "Bob the player has a bit of social anxiety and is worried about speaking up/session zero spotlight/whatever".. so there should be text aimed at helping bob instead of dumping it on the GM to fight the PHB.

It's entirely possible for bob to care & want very much to care but not know how or from lack of confidence stemming from not feeling sure enough about how he can so easily do it like Alice. The PHB fails bob there though & I covered how in detail back in post 378.

Please stop trashing players like Bob by assuming anyone in his situation simply doesn't care or is some "self-absorbed lunatic" as it was phrased.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep that one. The one where they constantly refer to it as One D&D.

Anyway, it’s not D&D…it‘s Hasbro’s house ruled garbage…made by a company that wants to squeeze you for every last cent with it’s upcoming D&D XS Ultimate Game Pass release. It’s soulless modern corporate sludge. Enjoy.

Mod Note:

You don’t have to like the direction the game is going in. (I certainly don’t, and haven’t bought anything since 4Ed.) You can express dissatisfaction about it here, as well.

But while it is entirely possible to disagree without being disagreeable, you have rolled a “1” on your persuasive rhetoric. Time to take a holiday from this thread.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Wow. I thought that the other OneD&D threads got pretty hostile, but I think this one takes the cake for most inexplicably angry a lot of it has been.

To get back to the topic of the thread, I'm glad that the DMG is getting (what appears to be) pretty heavy revisions. The 5e DMG was my first DMG ever, so it would be nice to see how WotC can improve on that mess of a book.

 

[Remathilis]

In the past players made characters that required other players at the table to fill in for their gaps needs & weaknesses while the monsters were designed to require some level of magic item gains or even magic item churn. That mechanical pressure is no longer present. Since that wasn't clear though & simply linking to the text of Chapter 1: step by step character creation on dndbeyond with an explaination lets look over it... step by step...

Your post and its ungenerous commentary led me to go back and look at how Char-gen was framed in previous editions. I admit I don't have access to all the core books, but I will try and look at as many as I have access to...

Spoiler: Basic D&D (Red Box - Metzer)

The Red Box spends the majority of its time teaching you the mechanics through a "Choose your own Adventure" style solo quest. During that, you do not generate your own PC but instead play a fighter with premade stats in the book. Once character generation is reached on page 23, the only guidance resembling team construction is " When you play in a group, you may play your fighter, or you may choose any of the other six characters included in the center of this booklet. [...] If you have 4-6 people in the group, try to play most of the characters given." Beyond that, there are no instructions given beyond how to design your character except the single set of rules provided. As a beginning or teaching tool, that makes sense; there is no need to muddle things up with the notion of House Rules.

Spoiler: Basic D&D (Rules Cyclopedia)

The definitive edition of Basic, this product was designed for people familiar with D&D rather than to teach concepts. It's a little more like a PHB. Its character creation rules DOES present the notion of Session Zero however! "If the Dungeon Master is just beginning a new campaign, he should call everyone together for a session where all players create their characters and where he describes the campaign world in which the others will be playing." And that's it. Everything else in the character chapter assumes no player or DM input until you get to equipment, where the DM again interjects "Be sure to ask your Dungeon Master if everything on that list is available in his campaign. If his campaign deviates a lot from the "standard" D&D® game campaign, he could have a very different list of equipment, which he should provide for you." However, the RC assumes that the DM will roll 3d6/order for ability scores, allow access to the seven core classes, roll for hp and money, and that your ability scores will decide what class composition your group exists of.

Spoiler: AD&D 1e PHB

Chargen in High Gygaxian. Unlike previous books, the 1e PHB doesn't assume anyone playing isn't familiar with the concept of the game. Ergo, there is no hand-holding chapter going through the steps. We start out on the ability score chapter, after a discussion on the term with "level", with " The referee has several methods of how this random number generation should be accomplished suggested to him or her in the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE. The Dungeon Master will inform you as to which method you may use to determine your character's abilities" No actual default method is given. We move onto race, where again Gygax injects "The Dungeon Master may have restrictions as to which races are allowed in the campaign due to the circumstances of the milieu.". Gary is more open when we get the classes chapter, stating after a brief description of each class "It is up to you to select what class you desire your character to be." with no hint that certain classes may or may not be off limits.

Spoiler: AD&D 2e PHB

I'm looking at the Black "Revised" version, which is 99% compatible with the original release but noted for in case there is minor differences. Chargen is outlined on page 16 with a one-page guide to the steps. It's more-or-less useless as is except as a flow-chart, and everything forces you to various chapters. The DM's input is utterly omitted from this page except to "Ask your DM what spells your character knows" if playing a Wizard. Diving into the chapters, the player is advised to "... ask your DM if he allows players to use optional method for rolling up characters" The DM is not discussed in the racial section (assuming all six races would open to play) but for the first time, class options are restricted; "Fighter mage, cleric, and thief are the standard classes. They are legendary archetypes that are common to many different cultures. Thus, they are appropriate for any sort of AD&D game campaign. All other classes are optional. Your DM may decide that one or the optional classes are not appropriate to his campaign setting. Check with your DM before selecting an optional character class." Proficiencies (specifically nonweapon) are listed as optional, with the term "provide your DM allows this..." The equipment chapter also carves caveats for what kind of money a DM will have and what will be added or removed from the equipment list.
Despite 2e giving A LOT more control over his world to the DM, I find it interesting we aren't setting any "work with other players" rhetoric; you are still assumed to be making a character in a bubble, but your DM has a lot more control over said bubble.

Spoiler: D&D 3e/3.5 PHB

I lumped both of these together because other than 3.0 having numbered the steps, they are exactly the same. This the origin of Rule Zero: "CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER // Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules. You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group." Can't be any clearer than that.

Spoiler: D&D 4e PHB

Boy Howdy what a reversal. Befitting the edition that trying to unify the D&D experience, 4e's character creation guide begins with "First, take a minute to imagine your character. Think about the kind of hero you want your character to be. Your character exists in your imagination—all the game statistics do is help you determine what your character can do in the game." It then goes through the steps, with only one nod to thinking beyond your own PC " You should pick the race and class combination that interests you the most. However, sometimes it’s a good idea to first consider the role you want your character to fill. For example, if you join an existing game and none of the other players are playing a character in the defender role, you would help them out by playing a fighter or a paladin." The DM, nor the notion any anything might be omitted, is ever mentioned for the rest of the chapter. Roles though again mention the notion of party balance and hint at expansion; " It’s a good idea to cover each role with at least one character. If you have five or six players in your group, it’s best to double up on defender first, then striker. If you don’t have all the roles covered, that’s okay too—it just means that the characters need to compensate for the missing function. // Future volumes of the Player’s Handbook will introduce additional classes for all these roles."

Spoiler: D&D 4e (Heroes of the Fallen Lands)

Aka the Essentials book. I realize there was a companion volume to this one with the remaining classes and races, but I only bothered to grab this one. I don't think it matters, it mostly repeats the information found in the 4e PHB, often times with the same (or slightly abridged language). Again, the book focuses on "imagine your character, thinking about the kind of adventurer you want to play." and "If you don't have all the roles covered, that's fine; it just means that t h e group needs to compensate for the missing function in some manner." The DM is nowhere to be found.

Having looked at all of these, I don't think any of them really handle what you're talking about super well. Basic and 4e give nods to party composition, AD&D (1e and 2e) are scattershot on their approach fo chargen, and 3e is the gold standard on being clear the DM supersedes the rule book while 4e is explicitly the opposite, but none of them were exceptionally good at this notion of char-gen as a group activity; each assumes the player does the majority of the work in isolation (or with the permissions of the DM). In that regard, the 5e material you quotes appears to be in line with the Basic and 4e versions the most.

I do hope the Revised 5e PHB addresses this, but this problem is FAR older than the 2014 PHB...

 

[Remathilis]

Back on topic

D&D Removing Half Races Is Less Dramatic Than You Think (& the Right Choice)

While One D&D's plan to eliminate Half Races is controversial, it's the right move for both gameplay and addressing sensitivity concerns.

www.cbr.com